Thе defendant, Henri Paul Tallard, Jr., appeals the Superior Court’s (Smith, J.) denial of his motion to vacate, modify or amend his sentence on the ground that it is unconstitutional under the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey,
The following fаcts are supported by the record. After a jury trial in July 1996, the defendant was convicted of, among other things, assault by a prisoner. See RSA 642:9 (1996) (amended 2000). He was sentenced to an extended term of ten to thirty years on the assault charge pursuant to RSA 651:6, 1(h) (1996) (amended 1998), which authorizes an extended sentence if the court finds that the defendant knowingly committed the assault “where he knows the victim was, at the time of the cоmmission of the [assault], a law enforcement officer acting in the line of duty.” The defendant appealed the sentence, contending that a county correctional officer is not a law enforcement officer under RSA 651:6, 1(h). We affirmed. See State v. Tallard,
In June 2001, the defendant filed in superior court a motion to vacate, modify or amend his sentence. He relied upon Apprendi, which held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Apprendi,
The trial court denied the defendant’s motion. The court noted that the defendant’s case became final more than a year before the Supreme Court
On appeal, the defendant contends that this court should not apply Teague, or at least should not apply it as strictly as the federal courts, because it sets forth a rule of federal habeas corpus law that is “driven by policy considerations that do not apply with equal force in this state, or under the circumstances of this appeal.” We acknowledge that there is some confusion in the case law over the applicability of Teague in state courts. It has been said that “[s]tate courts hearing claims for collateral review ... are free to set their own retroactivity rules independent of Teague.” State v. Mohler,
On the one hand, state courts clearly can determine the retroactivity of their own decisions on state law issues. See, e.g., Meadows v. State,
The determination whether a constitutiоnal decision of [the United States Supreme] Court is retroactive — that is, whether the decision applies to conduct or events that occurred before the date of the decision — is a mаtter of federal law. When questions of state law are at issue, state courts generally have the authority to determine the retroactivity of their own decisions. The retroactive appliсability of a constitutional decision of [the Supreme] Court, however, is every bit as much of a federal question as what particular federal constitutional provisions themselves mean, what they guarantee, and whether they have been denied. In order to ensure the uniform application of decisions construing constitutional requirements and to prevent States from denying or curtailing federally protected rights, [the Court has] consistently required that state courts adhere to [its] retroactivity decisions.
American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith,
Even if not required to do so, however, we are inclined to follow Teague here. We note that a number of state courts have adopted the Teague analysis even as to the retroactivity of their own decisions. See, e.g., People v. Flowers,
The law regarding retroactivity is complex enough without requiring counsel and trial judges to apply different retroactivity rules, depending on whether the substantive decision is grounded on state or federal constitutional principles — especially when many decisions are grounded on both. Given the supremacy of the United States Supreme Court on federal issues and its current explication of the law, we think public policy presently requires that we adopt and apply the federal retroactivity analysis to decisions of state constitutional law.
Of course, we need not decide whether to adopt Teague with respect to state constitutional decisions, as that issue is not before us. We conclude, however, that we should apply Teague to determine whether the defendant may invoke Apprendi on collateral review.
In Teague, a plurality of the Court set forth the following rule governing retroactivity of cases on collateral review: “Unless they fall within an exception to the general rule, new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases which have become final before the new rules are announced.” Teague,
The United States Supreme Court has not yet addressed whether Apprendi set forth a watershed rule for purposes of the Teague analysis. In addition, the defendant acknowledges that among the federal and state courts to have addressed the issue, his interpretation appears to be the minority view. He nevertheless urges us tо adopt that position.
The Supreme Court has stated that to fall within the second, “watershed,” Teague exception, “a new rule must meet two requirements: Infringement of the rule must seriously diminish the likelihood of obtaining an accurate conviction, and the rule must alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Tyler v. Cain,
First, Apprendi altered the procedure under which an enhanced sentence can be imposed. It did not affect the procеdure for obtaining an accurate conviction on the underlying offense. Cf. United States v. Sanchez-Cervantes,
The defendant contends, however, that it is erroneous to view Apprendi as simply a sentencing case and argues that because Apprendi redefined certain sentence enhancement factors as elements of the crime, it constitutes a watershed rule of criminal procedure. We disagree. In Neder v. United States,
In sum, we are persuaded by the above considerations, and the reasoning of the majority of courts to have addressed the issue, that Apprendi does not meet the Teague requirements for retroactive application to a case on collateral review. We neеd not address the defendant’s contention at oral argument that he was entitled to relief under State habeas corpus law because that issue was not briefed. See State v. Sprague,
Affirmed.